Ask the Laws Department XXIV: (Wide ball bouncers)

MCC, the Guardian of the Laws of cricket, discuss key issues in 'Ask the Laws Department' in conjunction with The Wisden Cricketer. This edition considers the issue of bowlers bowling bouncers which are given as wides.

South Africa's Dale Steyn fires in a short delivery at Ryan Sidebottom During the first Ashes Test at Brisbane there was plenty of discussion about bouncers being called wide when they passed over the head of the striker.

Commentators felt that, at that level, there should be more leeway and bowlers should be allowed to bowl some bouncers over head-height without punishment. The Laws differ from the ICC’s Playing Conditions for Test matches.

This is something that confuses many in the recreational game who assume they are playing under the same Laws as they see on the television.

In brief under Law 42.6 it will be a no-ball, not a wide, if a bouncer "passes or would have passed over head height of the striker standing upright at the popping crease". The ICC’s Conditions make such a delivery a wide.

This amendment by the ICC gives a batsman less protection than under the Laws, for he can still be out caught, hit wicket or stumped from a bouncer over head height. Moreover, under ICC Playing Conditions, if the batsman hits the ball, the delivery cannot be a wide whereas under the Laws, the delivery would still be called no-ball.

Irrespective of whether it is a no-ball (under the Laws) or a wide (under ICC’s Conditions), the difficulty in allowing some bouncers over head height is that it would still require a level where a legal ball would become an illegal one.

Using the head height of the batsman provides the umpires with the easiest benchmark, particularly if the batsman sways, rather than ducks. To create a level at a more arbitrary distance over the batsman’s head would provide at least as many problems as it would solve and consequently MCC has no desire to alter the Laws.

The umpire signals a wide against Australia's Doug Bollinger In relation to the balls that are wide, rather than high, this is all covered by Law 25 (wide ball).

Law 25.1(b)states: "The ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker unless it is sufficiently within his reach for him to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke."

It is not just the width of the delivery that is important. The position of the striker when the ball passes him should be taken into account. The judgement is to be made in relation to the striker both where he is, either after any movement to play at the ball or in his guard position if it is an abnormal one, and where he would have been in a normal guard position.

"Where he is" and "a normal guard position" may sometimes be the same place. However, the striker may move from a position where he cannot reach it comfortably to one where he can, or from a position where he can reach it comfortably to one where he cannot. In either of these cases, because he could have reached it in one of his positions, the delivery is not to be judged a wide.

The length of the delivery should also be considered - a point that is sometimes missed now that some groundsmen are asked to paint guidelines for wides in certain competitions.

A yorker-length ball that passes the batsman 30 inches to the offside of him is much harder to reach with a normal cricket stroke than a ball of the same width that passes him after bouncing at chest height.

Finally Law 24.10 lays down that, if the ball is called a no-ball, it cannot also be called wide. This will be the case regardless of which umpire calls the no-ball or when it was called.

Ask the umpire - with MCC Laws sub-committee

"We had a situation where an off drive hit a plastic water bottle that had been placed on the outfield by a fielder.

"The batsmen had crossed on their second run when the ball struck the bottle. The umpire said it was seven runs. Was he right?"

- Submitted by Dwayne Smith

MCC says:

Yes, the umpire was indeed correct (provided it was not a no-ball). As a fielder had placed the bottle there, it counts as illegal fielding under Law 41.2. This Law clarifies that the batting team is to be awarded five penalty runs, any penalties for no-ball or wide, any completed runs and the run in progress if the batsmen had crossed at the instant of the offence.

If a spectator had thrown the bottle on to the field, it would not have been a breach of that Law and would have been considered an accident.